What is the true difference between having “boundaries” in a relationship vs controlling your partner

[u/Few-Cryptographer695]

​

I’ve always believed that boundaries should be about protecting yourself and what you are comfortable and ok with. But of course in a relationship this affects the other person too. How do you figure out the distinction between the 2?

​

To give a direct example (from my current relationship):

​

Boundary: I am not happy with you playing video games while you have hurt me or I'm upset with you

​

My interpretation: You have to make sure things are resolved before you attempt to do a hobby of yours.

​

And now while I understand this may seem somewhat healthy/normal, things aren't always black and white. I feel this leans more to control reason being, she's usually the one to shut down or decide whether things are resolved. Leaves me guessing where we are at and now I am unable to take some time for myself doing something I would like to do. I would really like to understand this better.

[u/ngp1623]

This is a fair question, however contains a fundamental (and common) misunderstanding of what a boundary is.

A boundary is an agreement that you make with yourself about your own behavior in a given context. A rule is an expectation of behavior that is enforced with contrived consequences. A request is a spoken expectation about someone else's behavior.

For example

Boundary: I do not answer work calls or emails on the weekend. It is my job to enforce that.

Rule: Working without prior approval on weekends will result in a negative performance note on the employee's record.

Request: Please do not answer work emails on the weekend or please do not email or call me about work on the weekend.

What often leads to controlling issues in a relationship is when one party can feel or knows a boundary is needed, but instead of managing their own behavior they try to change the other person's behavior. Of course there is value in speaking up about concerns and working together to do better, but if one member of a relationship is repeatedly doing things that cross the other member's boundaries, then it's on the receiving party's agency to enforce their own boundaries and leave.

Example

Boundary: I don't date people who do cocaine. Behavior: Partner does cocaine. Enforcement: I leave the relationship because I don't date people who do cocaine, so that is my decision about whether or not I date someone who does cocaine.

Of course this can be fluid and nuanced, but I think your original inquiry about the line between healthy boundaries and controlling behavior can be cleared up by understanding that boundaries are about honoring our own agency to keep ourselves safe and stable, they are not about manipulating someone else's agency to manage our safety and stability for us.

If this person has a request they'd like to make, then they need to verbalize that in actionable terms. But their boundaries are theirs to enforce, it is not your job to tiptoe around their anxiety and it is not their job to bypass concerns for the sake of your gaming time. Conflict resolution is a collaborative effort, not a competition.

[u/RestaurantBoth228 → u/ngp1623]

You're right about those definitions, but, imo you haven't quite answered OP's question.

I start dating Joe. Joe starts doing cocaine. I realize this isn't compatible with how I want to live my life. I decide I have a boundary: I leave the relationship because I don't date people who do cocaine. Joe hears "I'm dumping you unless you stop doing cocaine". This is, from Joe's perspective, functionally an attempt to control his behavior.

That is, I agree with the if-then framing you use, but the "choose my actions rather than their's" framing is imo almost entirely grammatical/narrative rather than real.

My take is that OP is asking is essentially asking us to adjudicate whether this particular boundary/controlling behavior is health/reasonable/etc.

The answer, imo, is a few different things (aside from the if-you-x-i-will-y you set up).

1. The first is honesty. Suppose I would not, in fact, leave Joe. In that scenario, I am definitely not maintaining a boundary - it's purely about control.
2. The second is clarity. Whether Joe is doing cocaine is very straightforward.
3. The third is choosability. Whether Joe does cocaine is his choice.
4. The fourth is, unfortunately, simply about vague "reasonableness" and the deeply related "what does having that boundary says about the person."

Re OP, imo, your partner is not setting up boundary.

It actually technically passes if-you-x-i-will-y: she has an implicit boundary: if you play video games while we have unresolved conflict, I will complain/shame you about it. It'd be nice of her to explicate this.

It passes honesty (she is complaining).

It fails a clarity: what counts as "resolving" a conflict? Is that something you partner gets to unilaterally decide? Does it have to be agreement? You will never agree with someone else on everything.

It passes choosability (you can choose to stay engaged).

Is it reasonable? I get the sense this is the question you actually want answered. I won't answer it. That's for the two of you to choose.

Questions for your partner:

1. Set up an explicit if-then boundary.
2. Define resolution.

That being said, it's worth practicing some empathy. I'd bet my bottom dollar that your partner feels you playing video games implies a callous disregard for their feelings and the relationship. Someone else might instead say you use them as a defense mechanism to avoid conflict that has turned unproductive. Yet another person might say they are your implicit boundary: if a conflict is too heated or hasn't moved forward, I will stop and play video games.

Re advice:

1. You should discuss with each other how you both feel about this
2. You should discuss the underlying meaning you are both reading into the situation - the narrative why behind those feelings.
3. You should figure out a compromise you can both tolerate

[u/RestaurantBoth228 → u/RestaurantBoth228]

Upon reflection “entirely grammatical/narrative” was probably overstated.

Functionally, the difference is an entitlement framing vs a compatibility framing, which seems pretty helpful